Jim Ley wrote:
> "Daniel Schierbeck" <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43DCC855.80507@gmail.com...
>
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I also don't see why would want to send it over the wire as
>> application/xhtml+xml.
>>
>> Because it's not SVG/whatever. It *is* XHTML.
>>
>
> but it is not an XHTML document. It cannot standalone as one, so it seems
> to make little sense to send it as the same type as a standalone XHTML
> document?
>
> Jim.
Good point. Then application/xml would seem reasonable. Introducing an
application/xhtml-fragment+xml may be overkill.
Cheers,
Daniel schierbeck